Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32295662›Full record

SynthesisDisaster medicine and public health preparedness2020

Allocation of Scarce Resources in a Pandemic: A Systematic Review of US State Crisis Standards of Care Documents.

Douglas Romney, Hannah Fox, Stephanie Carlson, Daniel Bachmann, Donal O'Mathuna, Nicholas Kman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Disaster medicine and public health preparedness, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Ethical Guidance for Hard Decisions: A Critical Review of Early International COVID-19 ICU Triage Guidelines.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2022
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A proposal for selective resuscitation of adult cardiac arrest patients in a pandemic.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Douglas RomneyOSU Wexner Medical Center Department of Emergency Medicine, Columbus, Ohio.
Hannah FoxOSU Wexner Medical Center Department of Emergency Medicine, Columbus, Ohio.
Stephanie CarlsonOSU Wexner Medical Center Department of Emergency Medicine, Columbus, Ohio.
Daniel BachmannOSU Wexner Medical Center Department of Emergency Medicine, Columbus, Ohio.
Donal O'MathunaOSU Wexner Medical Center Department of Emergency Medicine, Columbus, Ohio.ORCID 0000-0001-5331-3340
Nicholas KmanOSU Wexner Medical Center Department of Emergency Medicine, Columbus, Ohio.ORCID 0000-0002-4769-4658

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review was to locate and analyze United States state crisis standards of care (CSC) documents to determine their prevalence and quality. Following PRISMA guidelines, Google search for "allocation of scarce resources" and "crisis standards of care (CSC)" for each state. We analyzed the plans based on the 2009 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, which provided guidance for establishing CSC for use in disaster situations, as well as the 2014 CHEST consensus statement's 11 core topic areas. The search yielded 42 state documents, and we excluded 11 that were not CSC plans. Of the 31 included plans, 13 plans were written for an "all hazards" approach, while 18 were pandemic influenza specific. Eighteen had strong ethical grounding. Twenty-one plans had integrated and ongoing community and provider engagement, education, and communication. Twenty-two had assurances regarding legal authority and environment. Sixteen plans had clear indicators, triggers, and lines of responsibility. Finally, 28 had evidence-based clinical processes and operations. Five plans contained all 5 IOM elements: Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, and Vermont. Colorado and Minnesota have all hazards documents and processes for both adult and pediatric populations and could be considered exemplars for other states.

Indexed as

State GovernmentDisaster PlanningHumansPandemicsResource AllocationStandard of CareUnited Statesallocation of resourcescoronavirusdisaster planningpandemics

Identifiers

PMID32295662
PMCPMC7198465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.